Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1887-11-30


passed by the Legislature in 1879, and al
opted by the people as an amendment IN
1880, we may fl rly presume that the word
''appeap' therein, was not used in its tech
meal sense, but in the popular and broader
sense in which il, is used Ia many OF the
statutes, and as embracing not only appeals
in the limited definition of that term, but
also writs OF error and certiOrari, where 1t
is necessary to do so in order to give effect
to legislation presumably intended TO give
effect to said Constitutional provision.
This conclusion is essential 10 make the
Constitution consistent with itself. For
Section Is of Article Ill provides for the
trial of cases in justices court by jury and
declares that
NO FACT TRIED By A JURY
shall be otherwise re-examined an any case
than according to the rules of the common
law" An appeal er n ter7aiRi IN Its tech
meal sense imports a trial moro OF the
case after a final judgment, thing I'M
known to the common law, and therefore
expressly inhibited by said provision OF
the Constitution, consequently the word
"appealn is not construed to include the
common law writs for the review OF judg-
ments ofjustices tried by jury, then there
can be no review of such judgments, aud
| the Legislature has no power to provide
/ for the review of such cases, because the
power given to the Legislature in that
matter is TO prescribe the manner in
which appeals may be allowed.
Understanding the term appeal IN this
broad sense, it will not be denied, l pre-
sumo, that this provision Of the Constitu-
\ ton would authorize the Legislature to
prescribe that judgments Of justices should
| be reviewed by writ Of error. If this be
concluded, as think it must be, then rs
| the Legislature is not limited as to the
manner It shall provide for the review OF
justices Judgments except that such re-
view shall be according to the rules OF the
common Law, it has an unlimited discre-
ton whether it will prescribe that the
manner of review shall be by writ of error
or ccrtiorari, since both of these writs are
modes applicable to the review of judg-
ments according to the rules vi common
! law. In FdrRSTOTth VS.. Railroad Company
| -, W. Va, 9l9, this Court in substance,
decided that the statute here in question
had, in effect, substituted certiOrGri for the
writ of error and that therefore certiOrdri
would not not lie to this Court under this
statute when the amount in controversy
was less than 800. For these reasons
am of opinion that the Circuit Court had
jurisdiction to entertain the writ OF certi-
Oyari in this case.
3. The remainingquestiont to be determin-
ed IL whether or not there is any error of
law on toe face OF the petition for the writ
otccrtior Ui for which the judgment OF the
Justice should have been revised. The
ONLY ERROR ASSIGNED,
which can be noticed in this proceeding, is
the refusal Of TIE justice to quash the
summons on motion of the defendant
Fcuse for the reason alleged that it con-
/ tanned miSjoinder OF action. The sum
mems - made part Of the petition and
npou looking through it We find that it is
precisely IN accordance with the iOrm pre-
serihed IN section 20, chapter 80, amended
! C0Ge 1t states as the cause Of action,
! 'd8mIges tor breach Of contract for build
| ing house and for professional services,
and demands judgement for $500. The
plaintiff in error seems TO entertain the
errOne Gus view thai an action before q
| Justice must pursue the same rules as to
! the iOinder of actions and strictness in
pleading that is required in our Circuit
Courts. The pleadipgs in justices courts
are prescribed by statute and are intended
to H. as simple aud free from technicalities
az the due regard TO the rights of the Iii.
giants viii permit Todd ". Gat97, 20
W Va. A64, 40.
! The summons is not iii all respects in
/ tended TO he a substitute iii justices courts
| iHT The declaration in courts of records,
and specially is this so in regard to stating
! the CIus@ Of action, because the statute
l,NoreSsly provides for Il complaint 10 he
filed by the plaintiff in which lie shall
state his cause of aCtiOC--Ssc. 80, chap 30,
amended Code.
! Il IS sufficient to state in the summons
in general manner the nature OF the
plaintiffs claim and the amount for which
lie will demand Judgment. 1t is no ground
| for quaShiDg the summons that it states two
or more causes of action. II there is any
error in this respect, it cal be remedied in
the complaint which the plaintiff is re-
qured to fife before the justice. If the
summons is good in other respects and
states legal cause of action il ought to
he quashed merely because, according to
the strict rules of pleading in courts OF
record, it joins two or more causes CT &C
ten. 10 this case apprehend there was
no mi-ioiuder of actions The statute
seems TO contemplate just such oiudel
OF actions as appeared in this Case--Sec
Is, chap. 80, Code.
But whether this he so or not is bot
mentioned in this case. The summons
here was sufficient and the Justice did not
err in refusing to quash it.
For the foregoing reasons, / am of onir-
ion that the Circuit Court did not err in
ustainiEg the demurrer to the petition OF
the plaintiff in error and dismissing the
same. The judgment OF said court IL there
fore affirmed, not for the reason affirmed
by it, for the want of Jurisdiction, but he
cause the petition showed 30 error for
which the judgment OF the Justice should